User:Lshane23/2020 United States presidential election/Mvmarsha Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Lshane23
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 2020 United States presidential election

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The lead is staying stagnant. Its is important for this article to have this because it is the background information on what the 2020 presidential election is.
 * No it does not indicate the current events of what is happening.
 * Yes I do see in the article where the nomination process and blockages that were said in the lead are located in the article.
 * Yes information such as the Covid-19 blockages.
 * This lead is concise and gives information on the candidacy.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Yes the content is related to the topic. It shows the updated version of the candidacy.
 * The contents of the ballot are not updated.
 * I think the general content information that is missing is about the current votes.
 * I don't see equity gaps within this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content added is neutral and it provides content that is supported by facts. I don't see any biases within this article just purely based on facts. Although I have trouble being bias myself. The viewpoints have an equal balance of how it is represented. No. It looks like it is up to the reader to decide which position to take.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, I see that most of these comments are backed up by real news articles. Which is not the normal accepted content but in this case I believe news is a great resource for this article. The sources are very thorough even keeping in touch with what is happening in our world right now. The sources are not current to the degree of today but they are current. There is not a diverse sources, there may be a side that is leading more towards the Democratic Party, Yes all of the links seem to be working.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

This content is well written but there needs to be more information about what is happening with the votes. I don't see any grammatical errors. The organization is well written and pictures are put in order of candidates, which is fair.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes images of the candidates and the captions does enhance the understanding of the topic. The images are very well captioned. Yes all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Yes the images are listed very scholarly.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. It is also supported by more than three reliable sources. It is linked to other articles which are discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

The content could be improved by updating the poll in the lead of the article.